8.

DE LA CERNA VS POTOT

FACTS:

On May 9, 1939, the spouses, Bernabe de la Serna (Bernabe) and Gervasia

Rebaca (Gervasia), executed a joint last will and testament in the local dialect
whereby they willed that "our two parcels of land acquired during our marriage
together with all improvements thereon shall be given to Manuela Rebaca
(Manuela), our niece, whom we have nurtured since childhood, because God did not
give us any child in our union, Manuela Rebaca being married to Nicolas Potot", and
that "while each of the testators is yet living, he or she will continue to enjoy the
fruits of the two lands aforementioned". Bernabe died on August 30, 1939, and the
aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said Gervasia and Manuela before the
Court of First Instance of Cebu and it was subsequently probated. Upon the death
of Gervasia on October 14, 1952, another petition for the probate of the same will
insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed, but for failure of the petitioner,
Manuela R. Potot and her attorney, Manuel Potot to appear, for the hearing of said
petition, the petition for probate was dismissed.

The testamentary heir appealed and when the same was heard, the CFI
declared the will void for being executed contrary to the prohibition on joint wills.
The CFI held the petition (petition for the probate of Bernabe’s will) to be null and
void as it is contrary to law. While the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the
decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and
conclusive as to the due execution of the will. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:
Can the joint will in the instant case be probated?

HELD:
YES. The final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First
Instance of Cebu (when the testator, Bernabe de la Cerna, died), has conclusive
effect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil
Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills, whether in favor of the joint
testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. 669, old Civil Code). The
error thus committed by the probate court was an error of law, that should
have been corrected by appeal, but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the
probate court, nor the conclusive effect of its final decision, however erroneous.
(Judgment on the first probate proceeding has become final as there was no appeal
taken) A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is
binding upon the whole world; and public policy and sound practice demand
that at the risk of occasional errors judgment of courts should become final at some
definite date fixed by law (Interest rei publicae ut finis set litium). This is not a case
of lack of jurisdiction but simply an instance of an erroneous but valid judgment.
Otherwise stated, it is merely an error of law and not an error of jurisdiction.

Petitioners, as heirs and successors of the late Bernabe de la Cerna, are

concluded by the 1939 decree admitting his will to probate. The contention that
being void the will cannot be validated, overlooks that the ultimate decision on
whether an act is valid or void rests with the courts, and here they have spoken
with finality when the will was probated in 1939.

However, probate decree in 1939 could only affect the share of the
deceased husband, Bernabe. It could not include the disposition of the share of
the wife, Gervasia Rebaca, who was then still alive, and over whose interest in the
conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction, precisely because her
estate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil
Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. It follows that the
validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be,
on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a
separate will of each testator. Thus regarded, the holding of the court of First
Instance of Cebu that the joint will is one prohibited by law was correct as to the
participation of the deceased Gervasia Rebaca in the properties in question.

Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia should pass upon her death to
her heirs intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other
valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of
said Gervasia. It is unnecessary to emphasize that the fact that joint wills should be
in common usage could not make them valid when our Civil Codes consistently
invalidated them, because laws are only repealed by other subsequent laws, and no
usage to the contrary may prevail against their observance.

PRINCIPLE: If both testators of the joint will were already dead at the time the
probate was made, the principle in this case may be applicable. If only one was
dead and the other one was still alive, the final judgment can have reference only
to the estate of the said deceased testator. Later, when the second testator dies,
and the joint will is once again presented, the same ought to be regarded as
intestate.